5 ms·

It's a nice security feature, true Though I'm curious how does the project keep working with CVS in $year, I wonder if everybody just uses git cvsimport and ju

It's a nice security feature, true Though I'm curious how does the project keep working with CVS in $year, I wonder if everybody just uses git cvsimport and just forgets about CVS most of the time

heffer 3y ago
Here's an explanation: https://cvs.afresh1.com/~andrew/o/why-cvs.html https://cvs.afresh1.com/~andrew/o/why-cvs.html
- rvnx 3y ago
  It seems you know the project, do you have an idea how they are financed for so many years ?
  - arp242 3y ago
    Mostly donations. https://www.openbsdfoundation.org https://www.openbsdfoundation.org has some overviews. It's a fairly small project and doesn't have too many costs, relatively speaking. Previously the main income was from selling CD sets (they intentionally limited the web download options), but they stopped doing that about 15 years ago orso.
    - rvnx 3y ago
      Thanks, very clear :)
- oofbey 3y ago
  The explanation all makes sense. But the key line of “we all know cvs” is effectively exclusionary to all the other developers in the world who don’t use cvs. At some point they will need new talent which will be harder to get.
  - SoftTalker 3y ago
    CVS isn't hard to learn; it's not a barrier for someone who's interested in working on OpenBSD in the first place.
    - hnfong 3y ago
      CVS isn't "hard to learn", devs worthy enough to make meaningful contributions to OpenBSD can probably make sense of it in less than a day. It's just... extremely anti-ergonomic given the other options we have today.
  - TheHappyOddish 3y ago
    Based on that rationale, anyone using Typescript is being exclusionary to developers who don't know Typescript. They picked a system that suits the projects work flow, is well documented and a relatively low learning curve for anyone interested. I doubt cvs would be the main turnoff for someone looking to be an OpenBSD developer.
    - oofbey 3y ago
      That argument would be more analogous if you picked say CoffeeScript. The point is it’s something that used to be reasonably popular but for reasons the vast majority of the world has moved on from.
    - raverbashing 3y ago
      > that suits the projects work flow, is well documented and a relatively low learning curve for anyone interested Maybe well documented, but "suits the project flow" and "low learning curve", absolutely not (I mean, ok, maybe "low learning curve" if you're developing a very simple UNIX project in the 90s) CVS is one of the tools where I literally never look back and say "ok this was nice". SVN and Mercurial something here and there. CVS? Never
  - AshamedCaptain 3y ago
    Git's popularity only exploded around 10 years ago at most. CVS is more than 30 years old. Make the math. There is reason Perforce, as crap as it is, is still as popular as it is.
- simias 3y ago
  All of these reasons boil down to "if it ain't broke" and "that's what we're used to". Switching VCS for a project of this size is always complicated and OpenBSD devs are famously "old school" and conservative with their software choices. I used to use CVS before switching to SVN and later DCVS like Mercurial and Git. The claim that "it is unlikely that any alternative versioning system would improve the developer's productivity or quality" is absolutely laughable IMO. This is especially true nowadays where CVS support in modern tooling, if it even exists, is usually legacy and poorly maintained.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - AshamedCaptain 3y ago
    > All of these reasons boil down to "if it ain't broke" and "that's what we're used to". "Works for us". Which is a pretty good argument. > The claim that "it is unlikely that any alternative versioning system would improve the developer's productivity or quality" is absolutely laughable IMO. Why is it laughable exactly? I mean for me I can't use CVS due to the lack of atomic directory checkins, but if they don't need them or they have already a system in place which may even better tie with their development/release style than any generic VCS could, why bother? > This is especially true nowadays where CVS support in modern tooling, if it even exists, is usually legacy and poorly maintained. You make that sound as a disadvantage...
  - fanf2 3y ago
    I think the plan is for OpenBSD to switch to got https://gameoftrees.org/ https://gameoftrees.org/ when it is ready.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
isamuel 3y ago
“No mention of openbsd on the internet is complete without a long thread about source control migration.” — tedu@

It's a nice security feature, true Though I'm curious how does the project keep working with CVS in $year, I wonder if everybody just uses git cvsimport and just forgets about CVS most of the time

heffer 3y ago

Here's an explanation: https://cvs.afresh1.com/~andrew/o/why-cvs.html https://cvs.afresh1.com/~andrew/o/why-cvs.html

rvnx 3y ago
It seems you know the project, do you have an idea how they are financed for so many years ?
- arp242 3y ago
  Mostly donations. https://www.openbsdfoundation.org https://www.openbsdfoundation.org has some overviews. It's a fairly small project and doesn't have too many costs, relatively speaking. Previously the main income was from selling CD sets (they intentionally limited the web download options), but they stopped doing that about 15 years ago orso.
  - rvnx 3y ago
    Thanks, very clear :)
oofbey 3y ago
The explanation all makes sense. But the key line of “we all know cvs” is effectively exclusionary to all the other developers in the world who don’t use cvs. At some point they will need new talent which will be harder to get.
- SoftTalker 3y ago
  CVS isn't hard to learn; it's not a barrier for someone who's interested in working on OpenBSD in the first place.
  - hnfong 3y ago
    CVS isn't "hard to learn", devs worthy enough to make meaningful contributions to OpenBSD can probably make sense of it in less than a day. It's just... extremely anti-ergonomic given the other options we have today.
- TheHappyOddish 3y ago
  Based on that rationale, anyone using Typescript is being exclusionary to developers who don't know Typescript. They picked a system that suits the projects work flow, is well documented and a relatively low learning curve for anyone interested. I doubt cvs would be the main turnoff for someone looking to be an OpenBSD developer.
  - oofbey 3y ago
    That argument would be more analogous if you picked say CoffeeScript. The point is it’s something that used to be reasonably popular but for reasons the vast majority of the world has moved on from.
  - raverbashing 3y ago
    > that suits the projects work flow, is well documented and a relatively low learning curve for anyone interested Maybe well documented, but "suits the project flow" and "low learning curve", absolutely not (I mean, ok, maybe "low learning curve" if you're developing a very simple UNIX project in the 90s) CVS is one of the tools where I literally never look back and say "ok this was nice". SVN and Mercurial something here and there. CVS? Never
- AshamedCaptain 3y ago
  Git's popularity only exploded around 10 years ago at most. CVS is more than 30 years old. Make the math. There is reason Perforce, as crap as it is, is still as popular as it is.
simias 3y ago
All of these reasons boil down to "if it ain't broke" and "that's what we're used to". Switching VCS for a project of this size is always complicated and OpenBSD devs are famously "old school" and conservative with their software choices. I used to use CVS before switching to SVN and later DCVS like Mercurial and Git. The claim that "it is unlikely that any alternative versioning system would improve the developer's productivity or quality" is absolutely laughable IMO. This is especially true nowadays where CVS support in modern tooling, if it even exists, is usually legacy and poorly maintained.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- AshamedCaptain 3y ago
  > All of these reasons boil down to "if it ain't broke" and "that's what we're used to". "Works for us". Which is a pretty good argument. > The claim that "it is unlikely that any alternative versioning system would improve the developer's productivity or quality" is absolutely laughable IMO. Why is it laughable exactly? I mean for me I can't use CVS due to the lack of atomic directory checkins, but if they don't need them or they have already a system in place which may even better tie with their development/release style than any generic VCS could, why bother? > This is especially true nowadays where CVS support in modern tooling, if it even exists, is usually legacy and poorly maintained. You make that sound as a disadvantage...
- fanf2 3y ago
  I think the plan is for OpenBSD to switch to got https://gameoftrees.org/ https://gameoftrees.org/ when it is ready.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

isamuel 3y ago

“No mention of openbsd on the internet is complete without a long thread about source control migration.” — tedu@